Council Considers Audit to Get to Bottom of Sewer Costs

With hundreds of angry homeowners looking on, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday took a first step toward approving an independent audit of the city’s sewer utility in an attempt to find ways to curb rate increases.

More than 300 people attended the meeting at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Northridge, and emotions about the embattled sewer utility ran high, with clapping and booing interrupting many speakers. As with many City Hall issues in recent months, this one played to the long-standing complaints among some San Fernando Valley residents about their place in Los Angeles.

For years, sewer rates have been contentious, particularly in the San Fernando Valley, where water use is high because homeowners generally have larger lots to irrigate. Sewer rates are based on water usage rates because there is no easy method of measuring sewage outflow from homes.

Tuesday’s vote was a victory for City Councilman Joel Wachs, who for years has argued for more scrutiny of the Bureau of Sanitation’s waste-water program, which manages the sewer system.

But the council stopped short of approving another sewer-related motion proposed by Valley City Councilman Hal Bernson to stop sewer fees from being tapped to plug holes in the city’s budget.

Several homeowners complained that their bills are too high and questioned why they had received bills for sewer service that were higher than water bills. The new billing system only takes into account the previous year’s winter water use, a system thought to more accurately reflect sewer service costs, but more costly for people who do not reduce their water use during winter.

Others complained that they still couldn’t understand their bills even when sanitation officials explained them.

In the end, the council agreed to seek an outside audit of the utility, but postponed the funding, which is expected to cost about $400,000. The audit was sought by Wachs with Bernson’s backing.

Skeptics wondered whether the audit would duplicate efforts the utility had made. “Over the past few years, we’ve spent tens of millions on outside consultants, with little result,” said City Councilman Mike Feuer.

Even more skeptical was City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg. “The real goal of this is privatizing the system,” said Goldberg.

Wachs denied that objective, and his argument seemed to sink in when the city’s chief legislative analyst, Ron Deaton, told the council that one problem with the utility is that “people don’t believe us.”

An outside audit would be valuable simply because it would be given more credibility, Deaton said, to a round of applause.

City Councilwoman Laura Chick introduced a motion to seek bids on the audit from consultants before approving funding, and asked that the contract be considered in 90 days. The council approved the measure 14-0.

By contrast, Bernson’s effort to eliminate the sewer franchise fee failed. The $20-million fee is transferred from sewer bill revenues to the city’s general fund to plug budget gaps.

Bernson called the fee “an illegal tax.” Others said there is no other source of the funds to fill the void. “I’m not prepared to blast a $20-million hole in the [general fund] budget,” said Feuer.

Bernson’s motion failed to pass on a 7-7 vote. Council members Goldberg, Hernandez, Ruth Galanter, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Nate Holden, Rita Walters and John Ferraro voted no.

Another Bernson motion, to give owners of large lots a break on sewer costs, was referred to committee. Bernson echoed the complaints of several speakers at the meeting who believe that the Valley is getting a raw deal on sewer fees because Valley residents use so much water.

Past efforts by Valley council members to shift the burden of sewer costs to older, and often poorer, areas of the city has proved divisive.

Galanter’s comments at Tuesday’s meeting suggested that the controversy could arise again if Bernson’s motion advances.

Responding to a resident who complained that his fruit trees had died as a result of saving water, she said: “Many people in the Valley are very fortunate. We don’t want to be harsh . . . but I’m not comfortable saying someone else in the city who is not so fortunate to have fruit trees should have to pay for yours.”